foreverknightfandomcom-20200216-history
User talk:Kodia
If I have left you a message on your talk page, please reply there to keep the conversation together LeAnn Condren As you will have noticed, we have a message from a Wikia staff member on Talk:LeAnn Condren, saying that someone who says that they are LeAnn has sent Wikia an e-mail wanting all mention of herself removed from the wiki. We need to decide our policy on this. The problem isn't removing LeAnn's own page, or the category for her Works. If she doesn't want an Author page, she presumably has a right not to have one—or her name on the title of any other page. The problem is (a) here; (b) on the story page; and © not getting repeats. Mentions in FK wiki history Hey, I just mentioned LeAnn on your User page in order to discuss the problem. That's a mention of her. In order to delete all mention of her on the wiki, we also will have to delete our discussion of her request. Personally, I have reservations about flat-out deleting our record of decisions and reasons for them. The Story's Wiki Article The story LeAnn wrote is "Sticks and Stones". Since the story exists, it deserves a page—at least as long as it's archived somewhere (which it still is, since its link works). In my opinion, that would be true even if LeAnn were the only author: I feel that the story, once published, has its own rights! However, in this case the situation is more complicated. The story was co-written with Tyra Mitchell. And she hasn't asked to have either her name or her story removed. Surely, she has a right to have her story on the wiki? Does one author have the right to keep the other author out of the wiki? I don't think so. Suppose we do decide to keep the page for "Sticks and Stones". Does that mean mentioning both authors' names on the story's article page. Certainly, we can't give Tyra sole credit: it simply wouldn't be accurate. Perhaps we could get around this by putting in "Second author (name withheld by request)", or some such. Similarly, for a story written by a single author who doesn't want to be mentioned, we can say that the author's name is withheld by request. The joke, of course, is that people would still be able to find out who wrote it by clicking on the link. But we'd be abiding by the author's request, since the archive is not a part of our wiki. Someone starting another LeAnn article Unless we mention somewhere on the wiki that LeAnn isn't to have a page, someone else—a new user, maybe—may make her a page some time in the future. So we need a policy. Then, if we have to delete someone's article on LeAnn, we can at least say that it has been done in accordance with that policy. A standing policy, that is: not something that looks as though it has been cobbled up on the spot, in an arbitrary sort of way, just to frustrate the newbie. Maybe we need a special page of people who aren't to have pages on the wiki. Of course, that brings us back to (a): that page, since it would have LeAnn's name on it, would in itself be a mention of her on the wiki. But somewhere we need a list—or we ourselves might fail to keep track of who's in and who's (supposed to be) out. There's some sort of horns-of-the-dilemma paradox going on here. -- Greer Watson 11:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC) Response from Kodia My short response to your long summary: let's use a similar tactic to movies where, say, a director refuses to put his name on it. We can specifically call out this "Alan Smithee" naming scheme by making a page that describes it similarly, describes the controversy, and still allows us to keep the article about the story when it has a co-author. It's also much shorter than "Second author (name withheld by request)".--Kodia 12:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC) :Which will work, up to the point where the real Alan Smithee decides to write a story. And finds his name is already taken. :No, I get what you mean. Something along the lines of "A.N. Other", which is fairly well known outside the movie world. Not to be confused with Anonymous—another well known author we've both encountered. :We need a term that clearly distinguishes between "Anonymous" (who never put his/her/its name on the story, even in the archive) and "Name Withheld" (whose name is in the archive, just not in the wiki). :Hey, how about "Name Withheld"? It's kind of self-explanatory up to a point; and, for anyone who wants more info, it could be linked to the page discussing the policy. -- Greer Watson 22:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC) ::Alright. I'll write up a policy page regarding this and we can go from there.--Kodia 22:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC) :::I think we should keep the article about the story even when the only author is Name Withheld. We are, after all, hoping eventually to list all FK fan fiction on all archives. That way, a potential reader can find out about the story, and go to the archive for it. :::We would not, of course, give any name for the author besides "Name Withheld". -- Greer Watson 22:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC) The basic privacy policy is now posted. I have some errands to run and a class to attend before I can continue with any additional adjunct pages regarding this.--Kodia 00:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC) :Looks good. -- Greer Watson 01:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC) :::Good. And I like the reordering of what you changed to tighten things up. I think we're good to go. Do you think we're done enough that I can take the name references on this talk page out and replace them with Name Withheld?--Kodia 12:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC) Privacy policy Hi, I just wanted to say that I'm impressed by your privacy policy. I think that taking this courteous stance on removing names is really going to reduce disputes and help the reputation of the wiki. It's lovely to see the care and thought you have put into this - as well as the rest of the wiki of course! Regards -- sannse (talk) 09:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC) :It's our pleasure. If you have other wikis struggling with this issue, please feel free to send them here to us to look at our way of dealing with this. They can feel free to email me privately if they wish more thorough discussion.--Kodia 12:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC) How should we categorize articles about non-author fans? I've wondered about this once or twice, but until now it's not come up in practice. However, the Jean Prior article (currently uncategorized) makes the issue more than moot. We have Category:Authors; and, of course, most of the fans who are relevant to this wiki—in terms of having their own page—are those who write fan fiction. But, even among those who write, there are those (such as yourself) whose significance to FK fandom lies in other areas as well. And there are fans who don't write, but still have done things that merit their having a page. I suppose we could have Category:Fans, making things such as Authors, Website Owners, and Listparents into subcategories. We will need, in that case, to decide what subcategories we need. At the moment Category:Authors is the only one we have. However, if we have Category:Fans, that raises the possibility of people creating their own pages simply because they are fans. People who haven't done anything specific, I mean, except watch the show, and maybe join a list or Yahoo group. To me this is not exactly desirable; but I don't know how you feel about all fans having the right to have a bio page on the wiki (other than their User page, that is). Nevertheless, if we have several categories for "significant" fans based on the variety of roles they play, then we certainly will need a supraordinate category—itself placed under Category:People—to group all the fannish bio pages together. Ideas? -- Greer Watson 09:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC) :Wow, these are all good thoughts, Greer. I had a rough night's sleep and I just hear the coffee pot finishing its brewing. I'd like to think about this for a little while and see what my gut starts to tell me. My initial reaction is that we might need a policy on notability but I'm going to let this percolate a little bit first and put down my thoughts after. With hope, that will be in a few hours, but I have a deadline for the magazine I'm writing for, so it may not happen until tomorrow.--Kodia 12:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC) Okay, a little late on this but my thoughts. First, there's clearly nothing preventing us from giving multiple categories to the same page. If a person is an author and that's clearly what they're known for, we can still use that infobox for them or we could try and make it more general. I still need to consider the implications of it, to be honest. I don't want to see a HUGE number of infoboxes get created for all flavors of people types, but neither do I want to cram a square peg into a round hole. We still need more discussion on notability too. As for the idea of a Fans category, I have to say I don't like it. "Movers and Shakers" while somewhat crude would even be preferable in my mind because there would be no confusion about the fact that notability was clearly required. If we really need "Fans" in the title, "Notable Fans" would be better. Distasteful, but better.--Kodia 16:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC) :I agree with you about "Notable Fans": that particular phrase does have a clanging sort of ring to it. On the other hand, if we don't put "Fans" in the title (whatever exact title), it might be a bit ambiguous. After all, one could reasonably argue that, from an FK perspective, James Parriott is a mover and shaker. :However, right now, I'm less concerned about the infoboxes (at least for the time being) than I am with finding a decent set of names to categorize the various types of Notable Fans. What term would you use for Jean Prior? Yourself? :And who else do you feel qualifies as—''(ouch!)—"notable"? -- 05:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC) ::Well, notability can be negotiated, to be truthful and I think we may have to be somewhat satisfied with that. I opened a forum topic a while back on this but forgot to put the forum head in to make it appear in the list of forum topics. I've correcting this now so that it appears. Perhaps we could wrangle on the topic there?--Kodia 12:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC) ::Just realized I didn't answer the one question you probably wanted answered most. What would I call me and Jean? Other than addicted? Notable Fan. As much as I hate to say it, that one really covers the majority of what we're looking for. Once we wrangle the concept of notability, then I think we'll be okay with that category.--Kodia 13:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Makers of fan videos I notice that we have a few pages for fan videos. Clearly we need a category to hold pages for their makers—something other than "Author", since that word implies a literary endeavour (to me, at least). What is the term for a maker of fan videos? -- Greer Watson 16:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC) :Director or Videographer would be appropriate, though the former is more accurate and the later usually a subordinate staff position on a video project. "Video Author" may well serve us just fine as it clearly states the medium and when people read "Author" they assume the written word, even if published electronically.--Kodia 16:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC) Bright Knight redirect page I seem to have boo-booed. Realizing that "Bright Knight" is actually the name of Amy's own website, and that her LJ blog is named What's New on "Bright Knight", I corrected the name of the wiki page. So far so good. However, I now need to make a page for Bright Knight itself. And here I run into a problem: the Wikia software has made an automatic redirect page; and, whatever I do, I find myself on the page for Amy's blog. I can't seem to break the loop and turn Bright Knight from a redirect into a page about her website. -- Greer Watson 17:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC) :This is one of the weird ones that requires pictures. When you click on the old Bright Knight page you should have seen this: :: :Clicking on the purple "Bright Knight" text in that circled text would take you to this page: :: :And clicking on the "Edit this page" link would make this appear: :: :I removed the redirect and placed dummy text on Bright Knight for you to get you started. Hope this helps.--Kodia 17:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC) ::"Amy's page that Greer will edit." (snicker) -- Greer Watson 18:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC) :::Amy's page that Greer now ''has edited. -- Greer Watson 19:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC) Gertherings We don't have a page specifically for Gertherings. However, there exist webpages about them (for photos, I think): * Gerthering 3 Photos * Weekend with Ger 4 * Weekend with Ger 5 Where should they go (page/category)? -- Greer Watson 04:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC) :Conventions seems like the closest fit, I think, from what I remember of the descriptions. Unless you can think of a better spot.--Kodia 12:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC) ::Looking a bit more closely, I get the impression that "Gertherings" are the same thing as "Weekends with Ger", for which we have a page already. So I've put the links there. Also made a redirect page. -- Greer Watson 12:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC) :::Okay, thankyou for looking into this.--Kodia 12:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC) Vocabulary If you check the changes while you were away, you'll see that on 28 July, User 65.48.175.100 made a couple of changes—specifically to the Nick Knight and Javier Vachon pages. These relate to vocabulary. In both instances the comment was that the vocabulary item being changed "is not a word". At this point, I have not reverted either of them. Both are words, of course: they are simply words that are unfamiliar to User 65.48.175.100. But I don't want to just revert the change, saying, "They are too words!!" That smacks a bit too much of the schoolyard. The fact that I have a larger vocabulary than someone else is not the point: one has to consider the comprehensibility of the wiki. One of the words changed is "adhorted", the other is "revulsed". I am not desperately surprised that someone else might be unfamiliar with the former; the latter strikes me as being a bit more frequent. Clearly the meaning of both was clear from the context, since User 65.48.175.100 provided quite reasonable substitutes: respectively, "insisted" and "repulsed". There are nuanced differences, of course; but the basic sense of the sentences remains unaltered. I leave the fate of these particular revisions up to you. However, this sort of question is bound to arise in the future. -- Greer Watson 08:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC) :I can see what you mean about the vocabulary being problematic. I understand how frustrating it might be to see an edit comment like this when you and I know perfectly well that the words are true. (Our vocabularies likely are larger than the average reader if only because of our level of education in our respective university systems.) But to be honest, I can only assume good faith. The changes don't make unreasonable alterations to the articles and while they are indeed nuanced, you and I both agree that the same sense is maintained. :Now, as for the question of these kinds of revisions coming up in the future, I think they're very much in line with how all wikis work. Are there specific concerns that trouble you in this regard? Are you worried about edit warring with changes going back and forth or some such? Perhaps we can discuss your specific concerns and see what might need to be done about it. If it's just concerns about nuance, I think we'll both have to shake our heads and sigh, and hope that people at least learn from our writing before they simplify terms.--Kodia 19:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC) ::In this particular instance, I'm not especially concerned. The essential meaning is preserved, which is obviously the important point. ::The joke, as I see it, is that it would actually be more important to make the change if the reader had not understood what the word meant, and substituted something that altered the meaning. That would mean that I had employed a word so unusual that it could not be interpreted from context—which would clearly be an error in judgment. My judgment. ::Here, though, the meaning of my sentence was clear. Which means that the change was actually unnecessary. (Sigh.) ::Yes, wikis get changed. That's the nature of wikis. I know that. I just have this (purely schoolyard) wish to say, "It is too a word", at which point we have edit-warring, which is bad wikiquette. Of course, no one is really going to go through the history and see me being falsely accused of making up words; it just gripes me. (Would you, too, I suspect.) -- Greer Watson 16:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)